Reduced salinity tolerance in the Arctic grayling (<i>Thymallus arcticus</i>) is associated with rapid development of a gill interlamellar cell mass: implications of high-saline spills on native freshwater salmonids
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Arctic grayling (Thymallus arcticus) are salmonids that have a strict freshwater existence in post-glacial North America. Oil and gas development is associated with production of high volumes of hypersaline water. With planned industrial expansion into northern areas of Canada and the USA that directly overlap grayling habitat, the threat of accidental saline water release poses a significant risk. Despite this, we understand little about the responses of grayling to hypersaline waters. We compared the physiological responses and survivability of Arctic grayling and rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) to tolerate an acute transfer to higher saline waters. Arctic grayling and rainbow trout were placed directly into 17 ppt salinity and sampled at 24 and 96 h along with control animals in freshwater at 24 h. Serum sodium, chloride and osmolality levels increased significantly in grayling at both 24 and 96 h time points, whereas trout were able to compensate for the osmoregulatory disturbance by 96 h. Sodium-potassium ATPase mRNA expression responses to salinity were also compared, demonstrating the inability of the grayling to up-regulate the seawater isoform nkaα1b. Our results demonstrated a substantially lower salinity tolerance in grayling. We also found a significant salinity-induced morphological gill remodelling by Arctic grayling, as demonstrated by the rapid growth of an interlamellar cell mass by 24 h that persisted at 96 h. We visualized and quantified the appearance of the interlamellar cell mass as a response to high salinity, although the functional significance remains to be understood fully. Compared with rainbow trout, which are used as an environmental regulatory species, Arctic grayling are unable to compensate for the osmotic stressors that would result from a highly saline produced water spill. Given these new data, collaboration between fisheries and the oil and gas industry will be vital in the long-term conservation strategies with regard to the Arctic grayling in their native habitat.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".